Allowed

Roop Kishor Seth v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2019A482/18060/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC arising from a dispute over an unregistered agreement to sale. Relying on a valid settlement and compromise between the parties, the inherent powers of the High Court were exercised to terminate the criminal suit.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Case No. 13796 of 2014 under Sections 420, 406 IPC ordered to be quashed.

Roop Kishor Seth Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18060 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Roop Kishor Seth Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Krishna Kant Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Head Sri Amit Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 13796 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.500 of 2014, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi in pursuance of Charge-sheet No.317 of 2014, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the dispute between the parties is in respect of execution of unregistered agreement to sale and consequently the applicant did not fulfil his commitment by executing the sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the parties have filed compromise application along with a joint affidavit of applicant and opposite party no.2 in which it is stated that they have settled all their differences even towards money exchange between the them and now there is no dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2. Therefore, prayer for disposing of the present matter in terms of the comprise between the parties dated 3.5.2017 annexed as Annexure-1 to the compromise affidavit.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that since both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant any more and has no objection, if the proceedings impugned in Case No. 13796 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.500 of 2014, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi in pursuance of Charge-sheet No.317 of 2014 are quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the first information report which transpires

¶10

that the dispute between the parties is essentially a private one and they have settled their dispute and differences amicably.

¶11

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (reported in 2003(4) SCC 675) as well as in the case of Gyan Singh vs State of Punjab (reported in SCC 2012, Vol. 10, Page 303), the aforesaid proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶12

Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Vikas

Roop Kishor Seth v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Kishor Seth v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Appu Yadav @ Ravi Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Sarvesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Narain Pradhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramwati and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another